Clifford N. Griffith v. Teamsters ‑ Chemical Energy and Allied Workers, Local 1302
1268‑98‑U Clifford N. Griffith, Applicant v. Teamsters ‑ Chemical Energy and Allied Workers, Local 1302, Responding Party v. Colgate‑Palmolive Canada Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice‑Chair.
APPEARANCES: Peter Clyne for the applicant; W. H. Mutimer, Leo Arsenault, Ken Caldwell and Maria Burgess for the responding party; Rob Madeley for the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 13, 2000
Decision
This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging that the responding party (the "trade union") violated section 74 of the Act. A consultation was held over two days.
The applicant has been employed by the intervenor (the "employer") for some 23 years. Since 1990 he has held the position of blow fill operator. From 1997 until the time of this application, and, pursuant to Article 12 of the collective agreement, he had also been appointed as a lead hand by the employer. Until August, 1998 he received a premium pursuant to the collective agreement in respect of his work as a lead hand. During negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement in the summer of 1998, the trade union proposed the deletion of the lead hand provision. The effect of the proposal, which was modified and ultimately agreed to in bargaining, was to reduce the premium available to the applicant, thus effectively reducing his hourly wage rate.
The applicant does not assert that the trade union could not propose such a change. The essence of the applicant's argument is that any such proposed change required specific notice to him as he was detrimentally affected. The applicant also asserts that the decision to pursue this proposal was based on personal animosity between the applicant and the union's bargaining committee.
The employer is a manufacturer of bleach and softening products. The trade union represents an all‑employee bargaining unit of about 65 to 70 employees. The employer's operation consists of three to four operating lines. These lines are staffed by employees filling operator positions. In addition to employees staffing the lines, there are approximately nine skilled trades employees performing millwright, electrical and pipefitting work. At the time of this application there were two employees filling the position of lead hand, the applicant and a Mr. McLeod. In the 1996 to 1998 collective agreement between the trade union and the employer Article 12.2 provided:
- In the event that the Company appoints as a Lead hand [sic], the employee shall be paid a premium of forty cents ($0.40) per hour more than his regular hourly rate or the regular hourly rate of the employee under his supervision with the highest classification, which [sic] is greater, for all the time worked in that capacity.
A Lead Hand in addition to his regular duties will regularly carry out duties such as assignments of work within his assigned Department and communication of work information including directing the work force under the direction of Management.
(emphasis added)
In or about 1992 a grievance was raised challenging the rate of pay to the then lead hand. That grievance was apparently settled in the very early stages as neither party to the collective agreement could produce or was aware of any written grievance or settlement with respect to the issue. The result was that the then lead hand was paid a 40 cent per hour premium over the regular hourly rate of the highest paid skilled trades person in the bargaining unit. This premium was also paid to the applicant during the time of his appointment as lead hand leading up to this application.
In January 1998, in anticipation of bargaining for the renewal of the 96‑98 collective agreement, the union requested proposals from the bargaining unit membership. A general membership meeting of the union was held on January 17, 1998. Notice of the meeting was provided in the usual course and the applicant acknowledges that notices for such general meetings are generally posted in the workplace. He did not attend that meeting as he was out of town.
At the January 17, 1998 meeting contract proposals were requested and offered by members of the bargaining unit present. It was expected that more proposals would follow and it was agreed at that meeting that a notice would be posted in the plant reminding all employees to submit proposals prior to the regular February, 1998 meeting. General meetings of the bargaining unit are held on the third Saturday of each month as a general rule.
The regular February, 1998 meeting was not held due to a major storm. The meeting was cancelled. The next general meeting was held on March 21, 1998. Prior to that, on February 25, 1998, the union negotiating committee met to prepare a document outlining proposals in anticipation of their first negotiating session with the employer, scheduled for March 27, 1998. The March 27, 1998 meeting was simply an exchange of proposals.
According to the trade union and undisputed by the applicant, at the January and March general membership meetings, proposals were put forward by members of the bargaining unit and accepted by the union's executive. A summary document (filed as exhibit 7) was prepared by the union which was provided to the membership at the April general meeting.
While the applicant did not recall seeing the notice for the January meeting, he was aware that meetings after that were scheduled and he thought he recalled seeing some of those notices. He did not attend the March 21, 1998 meeting.
The proposals put together by the trade union and submitted to the employer on March 27, 1998 included a proposal to delete Article 12.2, the lead hand provision. The proposals received from the employer on March 27, 199